On Friday, a race riot broke out in Milwaukee as dozens, if not hundreds of black youths attacked whites as they left the Wisconsin State Fair. I noted on my post that the major news organs were not reporting the story. As a resident of Southern California, I was particularly interested to hear what conservative talk show host Larry Elder would have to say about the incident. Elder, who is black, is constantly accused of being an Uncle Tom because of his views on race.
By chance, I had attended a social event in Hollywood the previous weekend in which Elder also attended (Republican Party Animals). I would have loved to meet him since I admire him greatly, but I make it a point not to approach celebrities.
This morning, I happened to catch part of his show while driving to LA. (I missed Monday's show). Today, Elder was discussing the weekend reports of the flash mobs that have been attacking people on the streets of Philadelphia. I still don't know if he discussed Milwaukee, but he spoke clearly on what is happening in Philadelphia. He condemned it, as well as any notion that poverty was the cause. He quoted Philadelphia mayor, Michael Nutter, himself black, who has publicy told the thugs that they are "damaging their race".
Elder has often stated very clearly that the biggest problem facing black America is the lack of the two-parent family and the high illegitimate birth rate-70% as compared to about 25% some fifty years ago during the days of Jim Crow. He blames that on the welfare state that provided disincentives for families to stay married. To me, there doesn't seem to be any other logical reason.
The incident in Milwaukee and the flash mobs in Philadelphia also illustrate another unpleasant truth that we must face. The victims are white. Can you imagine the media reaction had it been whites attacking blacks? Instead, the mainstream news media prefers to ignore it-not even report it-or if they do, make excuses for it. Meanwhile, where is the Dept of Justice investigating race-based hate crimes? We are still deluding ourselves that today-in the year 2011- blacks are the biggest target of hate crimes and violent attacks. True enough, they certainly were in the old South, but today, we have a new South, where whites and blacks co-exist probably better than the North-certainly better than Milwaukee and Philadelphia. We will never see the true statistics, but if you start labeling these incidents in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and other big cities as hate crimes-which they are, black on white crime would be at the top.
However, we are still prevented from having an honest and open discussion about it due to political correctness and the dread that whites have of being called racist. Yet, by this willful blindness, we do a disservice to the majority of black people who have jobs and obey the law. We are telling them that their accomplishments and character have no value. Meanwhile, thuggery brings back unpleasant stereotypes of blacks that we all want to put behind us. Mayor Nutter is correct; the thugs in Philadelphia are damaging the race.
Star Parker, a black conservative writer and commentator, who herself came from tough circumstances, has said it best; Poor people are not poor because rich people are rich. Yet, we have a president who was elected by a naive majority who believed he was going to bring us together and move this nation beyond race. What has he done other than fuel the fires over class envy-not by race-but by economic class? For Obama, it's the rich vs the poor. Is it a stretch to conclude that young blacks from broken families on welfare in places like Philadelphia and Milwaukee will act that out by attacking those whom they perceive as being rich-the whites?
This is the moment for the President, the Jesse Jacksons, the Al Sharptons, the NAACP, and the Congressional Black Caucus to step up and speak to young people in the inner cities. Don't hold your breath. It is moments like this that Sharpton goes to the scene and leads a "No justice-no peace" rally.
Meanwhile, we ignore the voices of people like Larry Elder and other black conservatives, who really are the the most intellectually stimulating and courageous people in our society. They pay a steep price for speaking the truth, and they should be supported by all social conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What a mismatched hodge podge of scattered commentary. I won't say anything about Elder, because I haven't been following him.
It is certainly true that the way welfare is administered, and certain expectations of entitlement that have grown up around it, contribute to the rate at which children are being born out of wedlock. What has also happened in the last 50 years is that many of the jobs a young man could support a family on have disappeared -- particularly those who didn't have a college education.
We really overdo the notion that everyone should go to college. Some people are not inclined, oriented, or skilled at academics, and could be quite proficient in non-academic fields. But many employers expect applicants to have jumped through the hoops of getting a "college degree" just because it is a convenient cut-off for sifting job applications.
Fifty years ago, there were good paying jobs in breweries, on docks, in manufacturing plants. They aren't there any more. Actually, there has been a modest resurgence in demand for skilled production workers lately, but after three or four generations, young men don't have any role models for these jobs, these jobs are not on anyone's radar screens, they haven't been socialized for these jobs.
Just as generations raised in the city can't imagine personally butchering a chicken or a hog, a generation that if nothing else has learned sanitation and cleanliness can't imagine working as a plumber or even an auto mechanic -- especially since they've been told that EVERYONE should go to college. I've occasionally advised a teen who didn't know WHAT they wanted to go to college FOR to go to truck driving school. Jobs are available, it pays good money, and when they decide on a purpose for going to college, they'll have some savings.
But there aren't as many of those jobs as there were fifty years ago, for all the young men who aren't marrying the mothers of their children.
I noticed a marked decline in the behavior of kids at a local boys and girls club between 2003 and 2007. The reason was fairly obvious. We had kids coming up who were not trying to get away with things they knew were "bad," they literally hadn't a clue there were any standards they might be accountable for. These were the kids who came up after mothers on welfare were ordered to go to work when the kid was two years old. Now, everyone wants to pontificate about why nobody is socializing the children.
Ending welfare as we know it was a good idea, but as usual, it was implemented with the blithe rhetoric and bureaucratic short cuts that generate all kinds of unintended consequences. It takes a great deal of investment up front to make a transition like that work. Politicians like to have cost savings they can boast of before the next election. Its no different than a business that wants dividends the first year, so doesn't plow money back into growing the business and improving the quality of operation. Now we're paying the price.
It is mendacious to blithely repeat the trite claim that the wealth of the rich has nothing to do with the poverty of the poor. The wealthy do not pull their money out of a vacuum or harvest it growing on trees. Often, the decisions that maximize profit are decisions that impoverish millions of others.
It is true that no business can expend its entire revenue on charitable impulses. Revenue needs to be allocated to maintain existing fixed capital, and provide for new equipment and facilities. More needs to be set aside for expendable inventory, or there will be no business at all. But a lot could be sliced and diced over what remains after that.
How many times have we read in the last few years that businesses have restored themselves to the pink of profitability by ruthlessly cutting payroll AND piling up double work on those who remain? Smaller businesses are struggling terribly, but that's partly because their natural customer base is out of work or poorly paid. Those boasting about record profits could be hiring, to relieve the intolerable burden on those currently working, and provide work to those who are without it. The dividends for shareholders would thereby be reduced, but not eliminated. There is wiggle room that ideologues love to haggle over.
Similarly, while no business can pay wages so high that they have to borrow money every year to meet payroll (soon there will be no business at all), millionaires and billionaires could perfectly well have foregone some millions or billions (not all of them, just some) by paying a dollar an hour more to the wage workers. To deny this continuum is as mendacious as pretending that either the boss or Uncle Sam has such deep pockets that endless money can flow eternally from them without ever running out.
Finally Gary, you really didn't say anything about Milwaukee. You just wandered all over the map about anything else that an incident in Milwaukee reminded you of, particularly after I made clear that you haven't a clue what it happening in Milwaukee.
What is amazing is that nobody has been killed yet. Eventually someone will pull a gun and there will be bloodshed.
Oh, I agree up to a point Findalis. After the incident in the park last July 4, I thought about what one or two people up in a tree with a rifle could have done to discourage the notion that these attacks can be perpetrated with impunity. It really wouldn't be a bad idea. Ditto for the mother shot to death at 5:00 am because she wouldn't give up a purse that had personal data of her employers clients on a computer inside it. It would have been great if she had a gun she could have shot first with. Now translating that into policy, without giving the thugs some sort of constitutional license to pack their own heat, would take some careful thought.
Post a Comment